RATHORE, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking writ, order or direction directing the respondent RFC to obey the direction of the Settlement Committee and thereby accept a sum of Rs. 50,97,830. 00 with simultaneous release of all mortgaged document lying with the Rajasthan Financial Corporation. It is further prayed that the aforesaid amount should be accepted as full and final payment of all dues of the respondents in view of the settlement of the matter by the Settlement Committee.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner company is manufacturing drugs and supplying drugs to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The petitioner companies have applied for loan from the RFC and total loan amount to the tune of Rs. 37. 10 lacs was disbursed from time to time and documents were executed on 17. 12. 86 for loan of Rs. 13. 50 lacs, on 7. 10. 87 for loan of Rs. 13 lacs and on 27. 1. 88 for loan of Rs. 3. 60 lacs. On account of default of making repayment of the loan amount respondent issued notices and the petitioner company against the notice dated 19. 2. 2000 filed a writ petition No. 850/2000, which was decided on 21. 11. 2000. This Court in the aforesaid writ petition has observed as under: " Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case in totality, I hereby direct the petitioner No. 1 to deposit 50% of the amount sought to be recovered from it in pursuant to impugned notice Annexure-19 to the writ petition within a period of two months from today and remaining amount is made payable in two equal installments thereafter within a period of six months. After payment of 50% amount of term loan by petitioner will furnish a statement of account to the petitioner indicating therein the balance amount recoverable from it within 15 days thereafter and the petitioner would pay 50% amount according to statement of account furnished to it by the respondent on or before expiry of five months from today and remaining entire amount is made payable on or before expiry of eight months from today. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to comply with any of the conditions enumerated herein above the respondent could be at liberty to recover the whole amount by invoking the provisions of Section 29 of the Act of 1951. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of at admission stage. " Against the aforesaid judgment rendered by the single Bench the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Division Bench and the same was also dismissed. The judgments rendered by the Division Bench and the single Bench have been assailed by the petitioner before the Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court also dismissed the Special Leave Petition. During the pendency of the appeal the matter was taken up by the empowered State Level Settlement Committee and pursuant to the direction so made the Settlement Committee has passed an order while dealing with the matter of the present company at Item No. 23, which is reproduced hereunder: " M/s Brothers Pharma (p) Ltd. M/s Brothers Laboratories (p) Ltd. VKIA (ARRC case) Shri Ramesh Taneja, Managing Director and Smt. Khurana, Director, represented the cases. It was informed by them that the Corporation during the period 1995-96 to 1999-2000 they could not make the payment to the Corporation due to substantial amount paid by them to Income Tax Department. The Committee noted that the assets are under possession since 5. 3. 2001 but the assets could not be disposed off even after making 2 attempts for sale. The MRV of the assets of both the compartment Rs. 149. 29 lacs. The outstanding dues of Income Tax Department is Rs. 357. 00 lacs and the Income Tax Department has claimed first charge tax liabilities to the extent of Rs. 312 lacs is also recoverable. The Committee also noted that one room of the Factory is having locks of Defence Department. Government of India in accordance with the decision of Hon'ble High Court. Delhi and as such even if assets are disposed off the purchaser cannot tamper with the assets lying in the said sealed room and the locks cannot be broken till disposal of the case pending in the Delhi High Court and the possession of said room if assets are disposed of, shall be subject to Delhi High Court orders. Shri Taneja and Smt. Bela Khurana informed the committee that since factory has been taken over by the Corporation, they do not have liquid cash and it is not possible for them to make payment equivalent to the 10% of the balance outstanding amount immediately for taking back the possession from the Corporation. Looking to the above background of the case the Committee decided to settle the account on simple documented rated of interest upto the date of take over 5. 2. 2001 on the following terms and conditions. (a) A sum of Rs. 2. 00 lacs shall be deposited to their loan account possession of both the units shall be handed over back to them on as is where is basis (b) Further sum of Rs. 9. 50 lacs shall be paid by them before March 31, 2002. (c) The remaining balance amount would be paid within 2 years effective from April 2002 to 31st September 2002 and there after interest 15% p. a. Shall be charged upto the date of payment the March 31, 2004. (d) The company shall withdraw the court case immediately. Shri Taneja and Smt. Bela Khurana consented for the above settlement.
(3.) IT is not disputed that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 2 lacs pursuant to the settlement on 10. 12. 2000 and Rs. 9. 50 lacs has been deposited. In piece meal the amount of Rs. 9. 50 lacs has been deposited on following dates i. e. , on 13. 6. 2002 Rs. 3. 75 lacs, on 1. 9. 2002 Rs. 5. 35 lacs and on 21. 9. 2002 Rs. 40,000/-, thus total Rs. 9. 50 lacs has been deposited but admittedly after 31. 3. 2002. IT is also not disputed that this period is also condoned. Thereafter, as per the settlement the petitioners have to deposit entire payment of loan on or before 31. 3. 2004. The dispute arose since the petitioners have not deposited the full and final payment on or before 31. 3. 2004. The reason of not depositing the entire amount has been stated by the petitioner that the difference of a sum of Rs. 5 lacs is on account of respondent demand towards administrative expenses, legal expenses and other expenses whereas settlement committee not issued any order for payment of those charges rather what was settled is that the due loan amount payable should be paid with simple documented rate of interest, hence on account of illegal demand of the respondents, unnecessarily raised a dispute only with a view to frustrate the settlement because so far as the petitioner companies are concerned, they had taken a facility of loan from other institutions on the condition that the entire payment of Rs. 50,97,830. 00 would be released by the financial institutions to the Rajasthan Financial Corporation on the condition mortgaged document lying with the financial Corporation be given to them. ;